Why Do People Argue About Being The Real Han?

[Sugar&Spice]

Okay, I know that this can be a very deep, and explosive subject. And I hope everyone handles themselves well when responding to this. I'm not trying to spark up anything, I just really would like to know why this topic comes up with chinese people so much.
I constantly hear Mandarin speakers, say that Cantonese speakers are not the real Han, and that they are not real chinese. And the Cantonese speakers arugue the same way, saying that Mandarin speakers are not the real han/ chinese.
Why is it that they argue over this?! Aren't They of the same race, but just with different dialects/languages?!
So why the upset?! If anyone has any facts about this subject, please add your imput.
And like I said before, no angry posts please!!

[orangeman]

I think people want the background history and credit for being the "real" Han people.

Personally, I beleive everyone in China who are naturally Chinese are Han people, no matter what they speak or where they were born. Since Mandarin and Cantonese are basically seperated by provinces, it makes no sense fighting over to be the real Han.

There's something in chinese school systems where changing a person's tribe adds points to an exam for school. And Han is a too much of a general term, since within China is about 50 other diverse tribes. Tribes because that's how the chinese word means to me.

[happifruit]

Actually, China is NOT a homologous country. It's actually made up of 5 major ethnicities (Han, Manchu, Tibet, Mongul and Hui [sorry I know I said Miao...that's also another ethnic group]) and a bunch of smaller ones. Most, if not all, of them are part of the "Chinese family" but some of them don't consider themselves or other ethnicities to be "Chinese".

That's also one of the main reasons why there are so many dialects.

Han is argued for a lot because of the fact that they are the largest 'tribe' as orangeman called it, and generally they are considered the 'real' or 'true' Chinese tribe. Also the fact that they ruled the country for several millenia, and spread Han culture to Japan and Korea.

Of course the 'true' thing can never be proven, but for some people it's just a sort of pride to be the 'true Han Chinese'.

Some people are really anal about it. Others not so much. I'm 75% Han myself, and 25% Hokkien which is thought to have linkages with some southern minority groups, but I definitely consider myself pure Chinese.

Most overseas Chinese don't really care...it's just people from the Mainland itself.

[hisashiluv14]

To be honest, I don't even know what it means to be Han. I just know that I'm Chinese, my dialect is Hokkien, and my language+culture rock. I think the whole Han, non-Han issue is really a non-issue, much like how some Taiwanese people deny that they're ethnically Chinese, which is absolutely ridiculous.

Most overseas Chinese don't really care...it's just people from the Mainland itself.

I agree. What I'm going to say next is completely biased, but I'm gonna say it anyway: God do the mainland Chinese people have issues or what?

[Sugar&Spice]

I really appreciate everyones replys. This was something that I wondered about for a while, they would argue about it. And it always puzzled me.

Now I have a question that may make me seem densed, but I have to ask it anyway. Who are mainlanders?! Are they the people who come from Beijing?! Because it is these ones who argue the most about who the real Han are. They seem to be the start of alot of the arguments regarding, Han and who is better. And yes, I do think they have major issues.:D

[orangeman]

I see mainlanders as Chinese Indians. The natives of China, not from some foreign country.

[Sugar&Spice]

Okay, but where do they come from?! Where are they located?! Guangdong providence?! Beijing?! Where do they originate from?!

[happifruit]

Just a correction: I know I said Miao was one of the major five...turns out it's Hui I think, but Miao is one of the larger southern minorities.

What I mean by 'mainland' are the people who are from the Chinese Mainland itself, not Taiwan, Hong Kong, or the ones overseas or in Southeast Asia. So anyone from Beijing to Canton to Xi-an, they're mainland to me.

I find that really odd how Beijing people argue so much about that, because I heard that a lot of them actually have bloodline from the Manchus, which, according to their argument, are not 'Chinese'.

I think the whole Han, non-Han issue is really a non-issue, much like how some Taiwanese people deny that they're ethnically Chinese, which is absolutely ridiculous.
I agree. There's really no point in arguing it. So what if you're not Han? I see the Chinese race as a huge 'family' of similar but different ethnicities. It wasn't just the Han that ruled China; the Mongolians had a dynasty, and the last one was the Manchus.
It is indeed similar to the Taiwan-China issue. Unless you're an Aboriginal from Taiwan island, you are either an immigrant or a descendent of immigrants from China.


This might be of interest to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalities_of_China

[tomato_0]

where i live, the cantonese speakers consider themselves more "superior" in comparison to the mandarin speakers - aka "mainlanders". i so don't understand this though.

[cowboy]

To be honest, I don't even know what it means to be Han. I just know that I'm Chinese, my dialect is Hokkien, and my language+culture rock. I think the whole Han, non-Han issue is really a non-issue, much like how some Taiwanese people deny that they're ethnically Chinese, which is absolutely ridiculous.
I agree. What I'm going to say next is completely biased, but I'm gonna say it anyway: God do the mainland Chinese people have issues or what?

Sounds like a little CCP propaganda leaking onto this thread. I suggest you run and look up what "ethnic" means. Being Taiwanese is as a legitimate ethnic group as any. Hell, if you want to base your argument on the fact that everyone in Taiwan probably, at one time or another, came there from China, then why not call Koreans and Japanese Chinese too? The fact is that Taiwanese have a shared culture that, though similar, is distictly unique from that of mainland China. I thought it was obvious. Taiwan shares a different history, has different political values, has different economic values, religous practices are vastly different, etc. So can't my wife call herself Taiwanese. she's never been to China, and in fact, in China they would arrest and torture in ways you can't even imagine in your worst nightmares simply because of her spiritual beliefs. Ethnic groups tend to be pretty tolerant of each other, Taiwan and China don't exactly share a happy history together.

[happifruit]

Ethnic groups tend to be pretty tolerant of each other, Taiwan and China don't exactly share a happy history together.

^not neccessarily. The last time I checked, Tibet wanted out of China.

The reason why I said what I said is because, although Taiwan and China have some very very unhappy history, you cannot deny that they are still very closely related in many ways to China. What do Taiwanese people speak? If you say Taiwanese really what it is is a Southern Min dialect, which also includes Hokkien and Tiet Chow. If you say Mandarin what is Mandarin? It's Chinese.

Japan and Korea have been isolated from China for so long that the cultures are distinct, but Taiwanese culture still in many many ways are closely linked to Chinese culture, and the immigration has only been for maybe a century or so.

I have nothing against Taiwan. I have close ties with it having most of my mom's family adopting it as their home. However, I don't think that there's really any need to argue over the Taiwan-China issue. And no there's nothing wrong with her calling herself Taiwanese. I call myself Cantonese, but really, aren't we all essentially Chinese?

[cowboy]

^not neccessarily. The last time I checked, Tibet wanted out of China.
The reason why I said what I said is because, although Taiwan and China have some very very unhappy history, you cannot deny that they are still very closely related in many ways to China. What do Taiwanese people speak? If you say Taiwanese really what it is is a Southern Min dialect, which also includes Hokkien and Tiet Chow. If you say Mandarin what is Mandarin? It's Chinese.
Japan and Korea have been isolated from China for so long that the cultures are distinct, but Taiwanese culture still in many many ways are closely linked to Chinese culture, and the immigration has only been for maybe a century or so.
I have nothing against Taiwan. I have close ties with it having most of my mom's family adopting it as their home. However, I don't think that there's really any need to argue over the Taiwan-China issue. And no there's nothing wrong with her calling herself Taiwanese. I call myself Cantonese, but really, aren't we all essentially Chinese?

Taiwanese and Chinese culture are as different as they are same. YOur arguments are moot, as you are trying to insinuate that if something is similar to another than they are the same. The UK and the US both speak English, share similar traditions, foods, clothing, and religious beliefs, but would that make all Americans British? No. What you are trying to do is play the Chinese race card (race, as we know, is something that only exist on a social level, it is not a biologic fact.) You are trying to lump all people with Chinese ancestral ties into one ethnic group, but that is just the most basic of determinations for ethnicity. My ancestors come from Germany and Denmark, but moved to the US 4 generations ago. Does that make me German? No, becasue I have never spent a second of my life in Germany or know anyhting about GErman traditions. I'm American. Skin color and facial features along do not determine your ethnicity, it is a collection of shared beliefs and values that makes an ethnic group what it is. Again, Japanese and Koreans can all trace thier ancestors back to China, but as you so eloquently pointed out, they have been separated for som many years they have developed a distinct culture of their own. Has not Taiwan done the same? Answer this one yourself after thinking about it, and don't give me any more of that "we are all Chinese" BS the CCP puts in its people's heads.

Also, FYI, immigration to Taiwan began tens of thousands of years ago and continued in waves. The last one of course being in 1949.

[zhy378]

i think most people who will argue on being the real han is the people in northern china like beijing. i say that because it is related to ancient china history, you know, when the people from the north like the mongolians invading china. resulting of mix of chinese people

however, as a chinese-american person here, i dont really see it as a big issue compare to people dealing it in other countries like singapore or malaysia.

[happifruit]

@cowboy: I understand what you're trying to say, but I find that a lot of that is really arbitrary.

Like how you say that you don't consider yourself German. Some people might still consider themselves German even after several generations. That's why I find it silly to argue it because every person sees it in a different way. Of my relatives in Taiwan, several of them still relate to being Chinese, while others consider themselves Taiwanese. It's all based on what one personally feels. Like Jay for example. Although he doesn't say it outright that he's Taiwanese or Chinese, he said himself that he has ethnic pride and you can still tell that he has a lot of pride in being both because just recently he bashed people who blindly follow Japanese and Korean culture waves, and writing songs using Chinese styles and especially a song like Herbalist's Manual which is a tribute to Chinese culture. At the same time, his music can really reflect Taiwanese culture.

So what I'm trying to say is, there's nothing wrong with identifying with a certain 'race' or 'ethnicity' as you put it, it just becomes ridiculous when it's argued over.

[pd0113]

Sounds like a little CCP propaganda leaking onto this thread. I suggest you run and look up what "ethnic" means. Being Taiwanese is as a legitimate ethnic group as any. Hell, if you want to base your argument on the fact that everyone in Taiwan probably, at one time or another, came there from China, then why not call Koreans and Japanese Chinese too? The fact is that Taiwanese have a shared culture that, though similar, is distictly unique from that of mainland China. I thought it was obvious. Taiwan shares a different history, has different political values, has different economic values, religous practices are vastly different, etc. So can't my wife call herself Taiwanese. she's never been to China, and in fact, in China they would arrest and torture in ways you can't even imagine in your worst nightmares simply because of her spiritual beliefs. Ethnic groups tend to be pretty tolerant of each other, Taiwan and China don't exactly share a happy history together.

ok for my part, i dont know what CCP propaganda is, but i know about the problems with taiwanese people considering themselves separate from china but chinese people thinking the opposite. i personally think the whole problem is that, regardless of any one person's views, taiwan is still a part of china (from what i understand). i'm from the u.s., so territorially speaking, it's like alaskans or hawaiians saying they're not americans. there's a distinct subculture within every state of the u.s., but it doesn't mean they're not american states. personally, for example, i live in the u.s. and i've never been to china, but i would never say that i'm not chinese.

as for the argument that you'd have to call koreans and the japanese chinese as well, i believe that the difference there is that korea and japan are now separate, independent countries, and until the day taiwan becomes an independent country, its citizens will still be chinese.

HOWEVER, if politically/territorially speaking, you don't believe taiwan is a part of china, then i guess the argument is once again up in the air.

My ancestors come from Germany and Denmark, but moved to the US 4 generations ago. Does that make me German? No, becasue I have never spent a second of my life in Germany or know anyhting about GErman traditions. I'm American. Skin color and facial features along do not determine your ethnicity, it is a collection of shared beliefs and values that makes an ethnic group what it is.

i know this is getting a little bit off topic, but what you say is partially true. the truth is, skin color and facial features don't determine ethnicity, and they shouldn't. but - and you should understand this since you consider yourself an american - that is not the case in the us. because you look like the general american population (white), you have the luxury of considering yourself an american and an american only. for people like me, who were born and raised in the u.s., but are very obviously not white, we do not have such a luxury. let's say i marry my chinese boyfriend, and our kids marry chinese, and their kids, and so on. even if my great-grandkids share your situation - never stepping foot in china, nor understand any chinese traditions - they will never ever be allowed to forget that they will never be considered 100% american, simply b/c they are not white. they will be labeled as chinese-americans, or asian-americans, but never simply americans.

the truth is, how you see yourself is only 50% of the equation. popular cultural beliefs and other's opinions, as unfortunate as it is, play a great role in determining who a person is. just think about the slavery era, when you would be considered black if you even had 1 drop of black blood in you.

[Sugar&Spice]

Personally I think it is silly to say,"I'm Taiwanese! Or I'm Chinese!" Because Taiwanese in chinese. I have to agree with Happyfruit. Taiwanese people are chinese, they also speak Mandarin. There may be differences in belifes but they are still chinese. Taiwan did not give birth to people, so saying your Taiwanese still gives a vague discription about your ethnicity. Also Taiwan broke away from china, but is still made up of Chinese people.

@pd0113 If you were born in america, you are american. It really dosen't matter how others precieve you. But your argument about people saying your black, because you have a drop of black blood in you. That was weak. If you have black blood in you, you are a certain percent black. Because it is in your blood. Should you say that your something else?! Also another reason that statement did not fit into this discussion, is because people are talking about, being the real Han. As well as not calling themselves chinese because they seperated from another country. So your statement really did not fit.

[petricia]

ok for my part, i dont know what CCP propaganda is, I think what cowboy meant here is the constant harping of CCP trying to stop Taiwan from gaining independence and their efforts in trying to rope them back in spite of everything.

I probably should not get historical here but... the fact is, there aren't many Han Chinese around (if there are still any). The assimilation of people over centuries ago have developed us Chinese these days. Ever since the Tang Dynasty (or was it before?), Han Chinese had moved south due to various reasons (food, floods you name it..) and in order to survive they married non-Han. It is just that Tang Dynasty being the Golden Culture then was so 'magnificent' that it overrode other types of non-Han elements people have then. Even the founding emperor of Tang Dynasty wasn't pure Han Chinese. In short there aren't Han Chinese (at least according to the DNA of real Han Chinese back then).

The whole issue of Han Chinese, I think evolved from a sense of superiority some distinct dialect groups felt over others. For me, it makes no sense. You are a Chinese by blood and (hopefully) by culture, you are Chinese.

Sugar&Spice: I beg to differ on the argument that 'Taiwan did not give birth to people'. In a sense, neither did China's ground gave birth to people. I think this belongs more to the thread where Taiwan and China relationships are being argued but since we mentioned it here, I thought i'll just bring it up to link to my next point. My stand is rather clear, I guess. Taiwan, to me, has all its claim to being an independent state on its own. You may argue that Chinese moved into it after 1949. Like cowboy has mentioned, it began long long ago, definitely dated back to the founding of Ming (16th century). The Chinese descendants from them are probably the 8th or 9th generation now. Basically, in a lot of ways, they develop their distinctive cultures and traditions to be called Taiwanese. Besides this long history, a shorter one would be the ceding of Formosa (a.k.a. Taiwan) to Japan. This 'occupation' by the Japanese changed a lot of things in the cultural aspect. For one, the eldery now were taught to sing Japanese songs then. There are alot of Taiwanese lingo (though pronounced in Mandarin) are originated from Japanese Kanji (characters). One example is 'Da Ren', which means 'expert' in Japanese. These words do not exist in Chinese, you can say that it is 'invented' by the Taiwanese. Even after 1949, Taiwanese went through a distinctive different piece of history than CCP China. For one, they did not go through the Cultural Revolution of China, which basically destroyed many, if not most, of the Chinese traditions. China also did not went through the tumulous time where Taiwan was ruled by the Chiang family. To claim that Taiwan is one of their provinces just because it is habitated by people of Chinese origins is a joke for me (though my dad would have been horrified by this thought. We've gotten into too many arguments about this :bleh:).

To link it back to the topic, I would say, the above example of Taiwan and China illustrates how vague the topic is. Han Chinese? Who can say they are, at least genetically?

To think of whether you are of a particular race/ethnicity, I think... you have to be at least partly genetically related. However, what plays a larger role will be the cultural aspect, which is very often affected by historical events. For many overseas Chinese, they don't necessarily consider themselves Chinese. Their cultures have been hybrid and there is really no point in pursuing their culture from ten thousand years ago.

For those who are constantly delegating certain dialect/ethnic groups to being pure Han chinese or not, they are in danger of over-emphasizing on it. How different is that then, from the Aryan thoughts or the Japanese's thought (then) that they are the descendants of the Sun Goddess?

Just my thought over lunch break. Hope that I did not deviated too much from the topic. If there is a need to delete this post because of that, please do. :bleh:

[Sugar&Spice]

I think what cowboy meant here is the constant harping of CCP trying to stop Taiwan from gaining independence and their efforts in trying to rope them back in spite of everything.

I probably should not get historical here but... the fact is, there aren't many Han Chinese around (if there are still any). The assimilation of people over centuries ago have developed us Chinese these days. Ever since the Tang Dynasty (or was it before?), Han Chinese had moved south due to various reasons (food, floods you name it..) and in order to survive they married non-Han. It is just that Tang Dynasty being the Golden Culture then was so 'magnificent' that it overrode other types of non-Han elements people have then. Even the founding emperor of Tang Dynasty wasn't pure Han Chinese. In short there aren't Han Chinese (at least according to the DNA of real Han Chinese back then).

The whole issue of Han Chinese, I think evolved from a sense of superiority some distinct dialect groups felt over others. For me, it makes no sense. You are a Chinese by blood and (hopefully) by culture, you are Chinese.

Sugar&Spice: I beg to differ on the argument that 'Taiwan did not give birth to people'. In a sense, neither did China's ground gave birth to people. I think this belongs more to the thread where Taiwan and China relationships are being argued but since we mentioned it here, I thought i'll just bring it up to link to my next point. My stand is rather clear, I guess. Taiwan, to me, has all its claim to being an independent state on its own. You may argue that Chinese moved into it after 1949. Like cowboy has mentioned, it began long long ago, definitely dated back to the founding of Ming (16th century). The Chinese descendants from them are probably the 8th or 9th generation now. Basically, in a lot of ways, they develop their distinctive cultures and traditions to be called Taiwanese. Besides this long history, a shorter one would be the ceding of Formosa (a.k.a. Taiwan) to Japan. This 'occupation' by the Japanese changed a lot of things in the cultural aspect. For one, the eldery now were taught to sing Japanese songs then. There are alot of Taiwanese lingo (though pronounced in Mandarin) are originated from Japanese Kanji (characters). One example is 'Da Ren', which means 'expert' in Japanese. These words do not exist in Chinese, you can say that it is 'invented' by the Taiwanese. Even after 1949, Taiwanese went through a distinctive different piece of history than CCP China. For one, they did not go through the Cultural Revolution of China, which basically destroyed many, if not most, of the Chinese traditions. China also did not went through the tumulous time where Taiwan was ruled by the Chiang family. To claim that Taiwan is one of their provinces just because it is habitated by people of Chinese origins is a joke for me (though my dad would have been horrified by this thought. We've gotten into too many arguments about this :bleh:).

To link it back to the topic, I would say, the above example of Taiwan and China illustrates how vague the topic is. Han Chinese? Who can say they are, at least genetically?

To think of whether you are of a particular race/ethnicity, I think... you have to be at least partly genetically related. However, what plays a larger role will be the cultural aspect, which is very often affected by historical events. For many overseas Chinese, they don't necessarily consider themselves Chinese. Their cultures have been hybrid and there is really no point in pursuing their culture from ten thousand years ago.

For those who are constantly delegating certain dialect/ethnic groups to being pure Han chinese or not, they are in danger of over-emphasizing on it. How different is that then, from the Aryan thoughts or the Japanese's thought (then) that they are the descendants of the Sun Goddess?

Just my thought over lunch break. Hope that I did not deviated too much from the topic. If there is a need to delete this post because of that, please do. :bleh:

When I made my statement, it was not meant the way you percieved it to mean. I don't doubt that Taiwan became independant, and formed their own culture, etc. Rather I was bringing up the fact that it is silly to say you are not chinese, just because you became independant of a certain country.

So when I said that Taiwan did not give birth to people. I meant in a literal sense. If they are not chinese, because they want to be seperate. Then what blood is running through their veins?! There is not such thing as Taiwanese ethnicity. Taiwan is a country made up of chinese people who want to be independant from china. But the fact is they are still chinese.

[cowboy]

You know, there is a lot of strong anthropological evidence that shows all homo sapiens originated in Africa and then emmigrated out to the rest of the world. Therefore, if you want to start tracing human history back that far, Surgar&Spice, I could argue that we are actually all African, making your argument is even more moot. Any argument of race is idiotic, because on a genetic level we have more in common with people of other "races" than our own. Hell, on a genetic level, we have a lot in common with chimpanzees too.

The bottom line is, all major "ethnic" differences between peoples on this planet are cultural. You will be hard pressed to make a successful argument that so-called "chinese people" outside of China share the same cultural traits.

[Sugar&Spice]

You know, there is a lot of strong anthropological evidence that shows all homo sapiens originated in Africa and then emmigrated out to the rest of the world. Therefore, if you want to start tracing human history back that far, Surgar&Spice, I could argue that we are actually all African, making your argument is even more moot. Any argument of race is idiotic, because on a genetic level we have more in common with people of other "races" than our own. Hell, on a genetic level, we have a lot in common with chimpanzees too.

The bottom line is, all major "ethnic" differences between peoples on this planet are cultural. You will be hard pressed to make a successful argument that so-called "chinese people" outside of China share the same cultural traits.

Your posts always makes me laugh(in a bad way) Once again, what are you talking about?! It seems to me that you love to argue without even really knowing what you are arguing about.

Let me get something straight here. I never said anything about tracing back human geneology. I said it is silly to say that your not chinese, just because you seperated from china. In case your wondering it is Tawan I was refering to. And that was in regards to another post. So I was REPLYING to something someone said, about that. I never brought up the geneology of chinese people. That my dear is something you adressed.

And if you want to say that people have something in common with campanzees, go right ahead. But I'm not settling form that hog-wash. They may have found so-called fossils, but it is all based on assumption, and false hood. As well as missing links.

Back to the topic, my discussion(as noted by my earlier posts) were not based on what chinese people are geneticly, or whether people of other ethnic groups have something in common with them. I asked why people argue over being the real Han. Why?! Because I don't know. So if you want to trace back human geneology, I suggest you do that on your own thread.

[KendoTiger]

*cries*

Sugar&Spice - when I left, so many months ago, I thought you were so smart. What has happened my dear, that you would post such as this?

*Has a Judes flashback*

*Apologizes to Sugar just in case*.

1. This is not the evolution debate thread (or the existance of God thread).

2. This is not the Taiwanese and Chinese people thread.

3. This is the Real Han Thread.

Therefore, please keep arguments centered on said topic, or revive past topics to cover minor debates in supporting arguments. Thank you.
-----
I will read the entire thread and reply after such. This will not happen until after my Macro midterm this Wednesday.
-----
So, being (the Chinese part of me), entirely 100% Canto, does that make me entirely pure Chinese?

[cowboy]

It seems to me that you love to argue without even really knowing what you are arguing about.

I'm sorry you beleive that. Care to provide examples from my post over the last 3 years to justify that statement, or are you ust letting off a little steam by calling me uninformed. Seems to me, it is you who are misreading posts, not me.

My post in question was of course in reference to your post:
So when I said that Taiwan did not give birth to people. I meant in a literal sense. If they are not chinese, because they want to be seperate. Then what blood is running through their veins?! There is not such thing as Taiwanese ethnicity. Taiwan is a country made up of chinese people who want to be independant from china. But the fact is they are still chinese.
You refer to Chinese blood running through their veins. This, to any intellegent reader, is a known litereary reference to biological evidence, in this case being "Chinese". Taiwan is inhabited by people who have, at one time or another dating as far back as 20,000 years ago, emmigrated there from mainland China. That is a fact, but due to such a period of separation it doesn't make sense to refer to them as Chinese, because they aren't.
Let me get something straight here. I never said anything about tracing back human geneology. I said it is silly to say that your not chinese, just because you seperated from china. In case your wondering it is Tawan I was refering to. And that was in regards to another post. So I was REPLYING to something someone said, about that. I never brought up the geneology of chinese people. That my dear is something you adressed.
You infered in the statement I previously posted to tracing back human geneology, as so, yes, I addressed this issue to show you how idiotic it is to prove someone is "chinese" using this method. Furthermore, I can add that it is equally silly to claim you are "chinese" when you have been separated from China for several generations. I've already given my example of my own ethnicity.
And if you want to say that people have something in common with campanzees, go right ahead. But I'm not settling form that hog-wash. They may have found so-called fossils, but it is all based on assumption, and false hood. As well as missing links.
You don't need fossils for this one, and the proof is already there. You compare the human genome with the chimp genome and the differences are minute. Again, this fact was presented by me to show how idiotic it is to use biological "proof" of ethnicity. Ethnicity is determined by cultural characteristics.
Back to the topic, my discussion(as noted by my earlier posts) were not based on what chinese people are geneticly, or whether people of other ethnic groups have something in common with them. I asked why people argue over being the real Han. Why?!
Ypu had mentioned this earlier, and I found it a wnderful arguement that did not need any further comment from myself. However, you are contradicting yourself, as you are making a passionate argument for the "one chinese" side in your last two posts. I agree that "arguing" over the fact that people from such and such place are biologically "Chinese" is a waste of time. Ethnicity is something that should be culturally defined and on a personal level, and therefore not the business of anyone else to claim another is "Chinese" or "African" or whatever.

[Sugar&Spice]

*cries*
Sugar&Spice - when I left, so many months ago, I thought you were so smart. What has happened my dear, that you would post such as this?
*Has a Judes flashback*
*Apologizes to Sugar just in case*.
1. This is not the evolution debate thread (or the existance of God thread).
2. This is not the Taiwanese and Chinese people thread.
3. This is the Real Han Thread.
Therefore, please keep arguments centered on said topic, or revive past topics to cover minor debates in supporting arguments. Thank you.
-----
I will read the entire thread and reply after such. This will not happen until after my Macro midterm this Wednesday.
-----
So, being (the Chinese part of me), entirely 100% Canto, does that make me entirely pure Chinese?
I thought you were smart too. But now I'm changing my view,just as you changed yours.
I don't know why dont you tell me. You know your family tree better then I do. Are you really going to allow a stranger to define your ethnicity?!(Sarcasm in case you didn't know) And since you want to go there. It depends, if your father is the one that carries the chinese gene, then you are mostly what your father is, and only a percent of what your mother is. So why don't you draw your own conclusion.
I'm sorry you beleive that. Care to provide examples from my post over the last 3 years to justify that statement, or are you ust letting off a little steam by calling me uninformed. Seems to me, it is you who are misreading posts, not me.
My post in question was of course in reference to your post:
You refer to Chinese blood running through their veins. This, to any intellegent reader, is a known litereary reference to biological evidence, in this case being "Chinese". Taiwan is inhabited by people who have, at one time or another dating as far back as 20,000 years ago, emmigrated there from mainland China. That is a fact, but due to such a period of separation it doesn't make sense to refer to them as Chinese, because they aren't.
You infered in the statement I previously posted to tracing back human geneology, as so, yes, I addressed this issue to show you how idiotic it is to prove someone is "chinese" using this method. Furthermore, I can add that it is equally silly to claim you are "chinese" when you have been separated from China for several generations. I've already given my example of my own ethnicity.
You don't need fossils for this one, and the proof is already there. You compare the human genome with the chimp genome and the differences are minute. Again, this fact was presented by me to show how idiotic it is to use biological "proof" of ethnicity. Ethnicity is determined by cultural characteristics.
Ypu had mentioned this earlier, and I found it a wnderful arguement that did not need any further comment from myself. However, you are contradicting yourself, as you are making a passionate argument for the "one chinese" side in your last two posts. I agree that "arguing" over the fact that people from such and such place are biologically "Chinese" is a waste of time. Ethnicity is something that should be culturally defined and on a personal level, and therefore not the business of anyone else to claim another is "Chinese" or "African" or whatever.

I'am not contridicting myself at all. I spoke of them still being biologicly chinese. That has been my stand from the begining. So what are you talking about?!


I think culture comes from ethnicity. It really dose not bother me, whether they say they are chinese or not.


I came on here to ask a question. But to say they are not chinese, makes no sense to me. And that is my opinion whether anyone feels it is my business or not. Anyone can render an opinion. But let me humor you a bit here. You say that sense they moved away from china, they are no longer Chinese?! So because they changed culture, they are something else?! So I guess if someone who is not chinese gose to china and lives there, dose that mean they are no longer white?! Or black?! etc. But now they are chinese?! Or if they go to Spain and stay are they now Spainish?!

I'am attacking the reasoning, not the people. I have Taiwanese friends. I just don't see claiming that your not chinese bacuse you seperated from china. They can be independant without disclaiming hwo they are.
And telling me your chinese dose not change my argument.


I still think of them as chinese, but seperate from china. I see nothing wrong with that. But this has gone way off topic.

[judes]

ok this is getting a little ridiculous with all of you spanning into different threads and then arguing over different topics. i know i've been busy and not modding this forum as much, but c'mon guys.

kendo, i'm flattered but it's a little creepy that you're name dropping me. and don't even give me the "oh man i used to think she's so smart but then she completely surprised me" crap, i disagreed with you, i used sources, you didn't understand my train of logic, boohoo, now we leave it be. what's the use of apologizing to her if you're going to say what you're going to say anyway? i find it funny you're saying something in here that completely contradicts what you said in the other thread about cowboy not being able to tell you that you're off topic.

sugar & cowboy, stay on topic, like both of you have kept on saying but kept on veering off the road here. we're talking about "the real Han" in this thread, not whether taiwanese people should consider themselves chinese. that doesn't really have any relevance to this thread.

like i said before, any irrelevant posts will be deleted blah blah blah blah. i'm tired of this already guys, so shape up.

[cowboy]

Fine, judes, let's talk about the "Real Han". A "real Han" is nothing more than a social construction and therefore waste of time arguing about, because it doesn't exist. Not unlike Hitler's "Aryan race" in Nazi Germany, the Han are an ethnic group seen in mainland China as the racial "ideal" and has been used to justify measures of discrimination and persecution by the CCP.

Therefore, as science has proven that race doesn't exist on any biological level, we must address the issue on a cultural level. The Han, remain in mainland China, as they are a Chinese ethnic group. Other so-called "Chinese" that have emmigrated out of the Mianland have since developed their own unique cultures (i.e. Taiwan, Japan, and Korea) or have assimilated into the cultures of the area they moved to (i.e. US, Canada, Signapore.)

Happy? If I'm still off topic, by your illustrious standards, by all means go ahead and delete my posts. What difference does it make? I'm just a white-guy in an Asian forum.

[orangeman]

Fine, judes, let's talk about the "Real Han". A "real Han" is nothing more than a social construction and therefore waste of time arguing about, because it doesn't exist. Not unlike Hitler's "Aryan race" in Nazi Germany, the Han are an ethnic group seen in mainland China as the racial "ideal" and has been used to justify measures of discrimination and persecution by the CCP.

Therefore, as science has proven that race doesn't exist on any biological level, we must address the issue on a cultural level. The Han, remain in mainland China, as they are a Chinese ethnic group. Other so-called "Chinese" that have emmigrated out of the Mianland have since developed their own unique cultures (i.e. Taiwan, Japan, and Korea) or have assimilated into the cultures of the area they moved to (i.e. US, Canada, Signapore.)

Happy? If I'm still off topic, by your illustrious standards, by all means go ahead and delete my posts. What difference does it make? I'm just a white-guy in an Asian forum.

I have to say race does exist on a biological level. People in the world look different, but how can that be if we all came from Africa, as stated in your claim?

Look at the chinese people, cowboy. Taiwan is more diverse than my birthplace in China, and that makes it easier to tell biological differences. Hair, eyes, facial features,etc. In your hometown of Nebraska, the blacks aren't the same as whites because they're not. Culturally, they might share things, but biologically, it's a no-brainer.

Science isn't always right. They're just theories and claims. Everything can be proven wrong, especially the claim that "race doesn't exist on any biological level". Cultural levels affect what the people do; biological affects who and what they are.

[judes]

Fine, judes, let's talk about the "Real Han". A "real Han" is nothing more than a social construction and therefore waste of time arguing about, because it doesn't exist. Not unlike Hitler's "Aryan race" in Nazi Germany, the Han are an ethnic group seen in mainland China as the racial "ideal" and has been used to justify measures of discrimination and persecution by the CCP.

i thought we were going to mature in this forum, cowboy. if you had posted this post originally, i would have no problem with it, but there were several key points that were missing from your link of biological background to Sugar&Spice's posts and if you only clarified or cleared those up i would have no problem with it. i'm not sure if you want to make it a problem by challenging me in my choice of what i feel is appropriate or not for this forum, since i am the only moderator here, my word is what goes, and if you want to take it up with karen or with one of the super mods, then be my guest, or if you want to discuss it further with me, then once again, like i said in previous posts, take it up with me in PM.

Happy? If I'm still off topic, by your illustrious standards, by all means go ahead and delete my posts. What difference does it make? I'm just a white-guy in an Asian forum.

the thing is, i agree with a lot of your points. i haven't deleted any of your posts in this thread because i believe some aspects of discussion between you and Sugar&Spice that did not get overly emotional are valid. my reasons for deleting your posts in other threads have nothing to do with whether you're white or not and whether this is an asian forum or not, if that's something you have any issue with, then you'll have to deal with it yourself. i'm only here to enforce the rules and it doesn't matter to me whether you're white or purple or polka dotted with horns. i'm a little surprised that you're responding to me in this manner considering you're the one saying Sugar&Spice should take it up with the mods for forum etiquette in the other thread, but i hope i'm not getting the vibe that the rules only apply to other people who break them and not you.

------------------------------------------------------
responding to the rest of this thread because this topic interests me:

I have to say race does exist on a biological level. People in the world look different, but how can that be if we all came from Africa, as stated in your claim?

i always encourage people to source, so therefore if you want to read up on the idea of race as a social construct and not really having any scientific basis, you can read the links to this article here: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/ramon2.html
it has a brief overview of why people "look different". it's because people adapt to their environment over time.

Look at the chinese people, cowboy. Taiwan is more diverse than my birthplace in China, and that makes it easier to tell biological differences. Hair, eyes, facial features,etc. In your hometown of Nebraska, the blacks aren't the same as whites because they're not. Culturally, they might share things, but biologically, it's a no-brainer.

you may be interested in taking some courses in biology or physical anthropology, because although we may look the same with features or differences in physical structure, "race" is not something scientific that we can separate people into categories with because there is no solid basis genetically that it is an appropriate method of categorizing. in fact, it's basically been disproven, like cowboy stated in a previous post.

Science isn't always right. They're just theories and claims. Everything can be proven wrong, especially the claim that "race doesn't exist on any biological level". Cultural levels affect what the people do; biological affects who and what they are.

scientific theories have withstood repeated experimental procedures, hypothesis and a continual cycle of evaluation and discarding unnecessary, incorrect or irrelevant data. if you want to prove any of these widely accepted scientific theories wrong, i suggest you start now.

unless you can find a counter example that supports your claim that "science isn't always right" regarding race besides the fact that you said so, then i'll be happy to entertain you. but if you're going to just make broad statements, then all i can say is, let me see a source or else i'm not taking you seriously.

------------------------------------------------

and relating to the concept of "han" which is continually used interchangeably with "chinese", i'm going to assume that it's related to the ethnicity idea. the problem is that the idea of ethnicity is fluid and changing, where it used to be based on ancestry and lineage, now it's also interrelated with language and cultural traditions.

i identify with being ethnically chinese because i use the term ethnicity as relating to ancestry and lineage as in, i come from chinese ancestors. but it's really quite arbitrary so if we're going to sit there debating definitions, we're going to go nowhere.

i think it's quite pointless for people to argue whether they are the real chinese or the real han because the term "chinese" has become related to "china" and has serious political links rather than simply a common cultural background. which is why when it comes to the china/taiwan debate, i don't bother arguing about taiwanese culture versus chinese culture, the definition of taiwanese ethnicity and whether that is "chinese" (as related to china) ethnicity or not. i argue it on a purely political basis, just like the britain/us idea someone brought up a few posts back. taiwan has been self governing and independent from china for many, many years. taiwan has a separate political system and a separate economy from china (well you can argue against that, but this is in terms of regulation and branches of government). i don't want taiwan to be governed by a distant government who has been under different influences and the ideas of that government clashes with my beliefs.

so that's my response to your question, sugar&spice. the argument has really developed beyond which group is "the real han". it's a territorial and political manuevering strategy more than anything else. i don't think any of the taiwanese really think of themselves as completely separate from china in terms of traditions and cultural backgrounds. we study a lot of the same history such as regarding the dynasties and also a lot of the classical literature. what differs is the history that we learn after the communist party took over china and chiang kai shek took his party to taiwan. that's where the split begins and i don't think it's ignoring our ethnic/cultural background as being chinese, it's distancing ourselves from the government of china by calling ourselves "not chinese" as in "not mainland chinese" or "not associated with the government in beijing".

[orangeman]

i always encourage people to source, so therefore if you want to read up on the idea of race as a social construct and not really having any scientific basis, you can read the links to this article here: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/ramon2.html
it has a brief overview of why people "look different". it's because people adapt to their environment over time.

"This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations."

I don't take the writers' word on this. He does give an alternative view on the definition of race, but that's how I will see it as. It's just another opinion.


you may be interested in taking some courses in biology or physical anthropology, because although we may look the same with features or differences in physical structure, "race" is not something scientific that we can separate people into categories with because there is no solid basis genetically that it is an appropriate method of categorizing. in fact, it's basically been disproven, like cowboy stated in a previous post.


I used the example to show we have biological differences, and that race isn't only cultural. I don't see why you have to accept science.

scientific theories have withstood repeated experimental procedures, hypothesis and a continual cycle of evaluation and discarding unnecessary, incorrect or irrelevant data. if you want to prove any of these widely accepted scientific theories wrong, i suggest you start now.

unless you can find a counter example that supports your claim that "science isn't always right" regarding race besides the fact that you said so, then i'll be happy to entertain you. but if you're going to just make broad statements, then all i can say is, let me see a source or else i'm not taking you seriously.

How can I source my opinions? I see science as information, not a way of living life. I'm not going to let it tell me what is wrong and right in the world. I don't care if anyone takes me seriously. My opinion won't change.

[judes]

"This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations."

I don't take the writers' word on this. He does give an alternative view on the definition of race, but that's how I will see it as. It's just another opinion.

it's actally a good overview of something that's not an "alternate" view but something that is widely accepted in the scientific community. like i said, follow through on those links on the bottom and although some of them may contain alternate theories, these are the best ones we have. i would pull out the actual articles that we have to read from the journals, but i don't think you have the background that is required to read them from your wide, generalizing opinions that you're expressing.

I used the example to show we have biological differences, and that race isn't only cultural. I don't see why you have to accept science.

if you're going to argue biological differences, then as someone who used to be a biological sciences major and is currently in biochemistry and taking biology courses, i'm going to say that there are no biological differences between races. it's not biology to talk about someone's appearance and features and call them racial distinctions. on a genetic basis, the species that we belong to, we can all interbreed with each other and our physical, apparent differences are only the product of our ancestor's environment and mutations within our genetics that could be passed down to our offspring. it's dangerous to place people in racial groups because you see what that resulted from in european history with colonialism.

if you're going to argue that race is not a social cultural construct, then you'll have to bring it up with the anthropologists of our day and they will definitely tell you that you're wrong, race IS a social construct and that our physical differences are minor and you simply cannot categorize someone based on race. which is why arguing about "the real han" is also dangerous because like i said, it goes back to colonialism, and it's become such a political idea of "we are MORE of a certain race than you ever will be" and it's used to fuel blind patriotism.

How can I source my opinions? I see science as information, not a way of living life. I'm not going to let it tell me what is wrong and right in the world. I don't care if anyone takes me seriously. My opinion won't change.

if you can't source your opinions, then you really have little ground to stand on. a real debate is about gathering information that supports your claim, then presenting the information in an eloquent and convincing manner. it's also about listening to the other person and being able to see their side and their point of view and also their ideas, BUT that person has to be have some ideas that are at least supported by evidence, not just "i have an opinion". there may be some debates you can get away with that talks only about your opinion, like "why do you believe in God", but unfortunately when it comes to race and when you're trying to argue that there is such a thing as race while in the scientific and anthropological community it's nothing but a social construct, you can't simply say you have an opinion and expect us to go "oh alright you're entitled to it" because you're not if your statements include ideas that contradict a lot of what science has learned over time.

you don't have to believe anything that science teaches you. but i find it ignorant that you would ignore the information presented to you and just brush it off as false just because it doesn't make sense to you, especially your final words "i don't care if nobody takes me seriously, my opinions won't change." then you're probably not suitable for the debate forum if you're not here to learn and to listen. debates aren't for telling people what you think and that's that, it's about defending your stance, it's about supporting your opinion, and being flexible when new facts are presented. science has not gotten to the point it is at now by not asking questions and going "oh my opinions wont't change".

[orangeman]

it's actally a good overview of something that's not an "alternate" view but something that is widely accepted in the scientific community. like i said, follow through on those links on the bottom and although some of them may contain alternate theories, these are the best ones we have. i would pull out the actual articles that we have to read from the journals, but i don't think you have the background that is required to read them from your wide, generalizing opinions that you're expressing.


I don't care much for the scientific community. I generalized, but I least I have my own views. Scientific theory doesn't always explain how the world functions. It turns people into science snobs, always giving the "it is proven by science". They have to have a logical reason for everything.

f you can't source your opinions, then you really have little ground to stand on. a real debate is about gathering information that supports your claim, then presenting the information in an eloquent and convincing manner. it's also about listening to the other person and being able to see their side and their point of view and also their ideas, BUT that person has to be have some ideas that are at least supported by evidence, not just "i have an opinion". there may be some debates you can get away with that talks only about your opinion, like "why do you believe in God", but unfortunately when it comes to race and when you're trying to argue that there is such a thing as race while in the scientific and anthropological community it's nothing but a social construct, you can't simply say you have an opinion and expect us to go "oh alright you're entitled to it" because you're not if your statements include ideas that contradict a lot of what science has learned over time.

you don't have to believe anything that science teaches you. but i find it ignorant that you would ignore the information presented to you and just brush it off as false just because it doesn't make sense to you, especially your final words "i don't care if nobody takes me seriously, my opinions won't change." then you're probably not suitable for the debate forum if you're not here to learn and to listen. debates aren't for telling people what you think and that's that, it's about defending your stance, it's about supporting your opinion, and being flexible when new facts are presented. science has not gotten to the point it is at now by not asking questions and going "oh my opinions wont't change".

Calling me ignorant because I don't accept the ideas of a scientific article? I don't give a shit about science. I think sourcing is stupid. It shows that someone has no real personal thoughts, only those derived from sources. I don't expect anyone to believe me. Nor was I pushing my views. I will defend myself without the use of facts and/or sources. If you don't like my posts, feel free to delete them. No hard feelings from me.

[KendoTiger]

I don't care much for the scientific community. I generalized, but I least I have my own views. Scientific theory doesn't always explain how the world functions. It turns people into science snobs, always giving the "it is proven by science". They have to have a logical reason for everything.

Science only expands because of people who have new ideas. If no scientist had a new idea, then we wouldn't have any inventions, no new medicine nor ways to fight disease. Once someone understands a field of science, it is up to them to expand that field by experimenting on new things. Ever hear the phrase "publish or perish"? If a scientist does not publish new material (experiments which have not only worked, but can be recreated by skeptical scientists, and has the same end result), then they are fired from their jobs.

The amazing thing about science is that it can pretty much describe anything in nature. That is the whole point in it's original creation - to look at how the world works, find out exactly what happens, and why it happens. It does this through repeatable experiments in which only one variable is tested (so we can see how that one aspect affects the whole). Sometimes, scientists are proven wrong (according to their original hypothesis), but they still publish the results (except in a few rare cases where the information leads to an unproductive end - ie, you don't need to publish that a lack of any water inhibits plant growth).

It is true that a high-school textbook is rarely amazing, but you have to realize the publishers condensed millions of pages of provable experiments and analysis into a few paragraphs.

Science has been around long enough that there is a proven explanation for the majority of wide-ranged questions (why is the sky blue, why do people's feet smell, etc). Only more indepth questions still evade us, but are being worked on currently (cure for aids, etc). Science isn't religion - you can't randomly claim everything is "proven by science"; science isn't perfect - with new information, new analysises can be done. Still, almost everything "proven" by science is probably true - as there is an amazing amount of scrutiny upon scientists. To create experiments which not only prove what is claimed by a scientist, but will also gives the same results for a scientists who doesn't want it to be true, is the goal of scientific experiments. It would not be "proven" unless the skeptics and disbelievers could do the same experiment, get the same results, and come to the same conclusion.

Actually, some scientists want there to be restrictions on what is studied. They don't want to experiment on everything so that there can be a logical understanding of the subject.

Calling me ignorant because I don't accept the ideas of a scientific article? I don't give a shit about science. I think sourcing is stupid. It shows that someone has no real personal thoughts, only those derived from sources. I don't expect anyone to believe me. Nor was I pushing my views. I will defend myself without the use of facts and/or sources. If you don't like my posts, feel free to delete them. No hard feelings from me.

If you want to refute a specific source, do it intelligently - do not insult the entire scientific community by claiming it is worthless. Chances are that without science, you would be dead by now. Yup.

As for originality (with sources): you're absolutely wrong. The point of a source isn't to agree with you - it is to provide evidence to support a claim you make. A claim is different from an opinion. You can have the opinion that science sucks - no one can argue with it: they can say it's stupid, but it's ultimately your decision to believe in it or not. But when you make the claim that science can't explain how the world functions, then that is a statement that can be refuted by fact and evidence.

Er, for another example. You could have the opinion that Judes is mean. People can say you're wrong, that she pet's puppies - but it's ultimately up to you to decide. If you claim that Judes is a garbage-collector, this can be proven wrong. Even if Judes says you are wrong, she would still have to support her statement by showing you her tax forms - which show that she has a different job than trash-collector.

That is the difference - it is fine to state your opinion, but if you make a claim (generalization, statement, etc) - then you must be able to support it with evidence or no one will believe you.

You can't defend yourself without sources, or logic - because otherwise, it's just you shouting "I think so because I think so. I'm right because I want to be right. You're wrong because I don't agree with you." And that is below immaturity - it's stupidity. I don't think Sugar&Spice can disagree.

-----------ps
Oh, and my comment about my ethnicity was in relation to the belief (that I've encountered), that Mando people (even if Han), are not real Chinese, because their speech is farther from traditional (Manchurian Influenced).

[judes]

I don't care much for the scientific community. I generalized, but I least I have my own views. Scientific theory doesn't always explain how the world functions. It turns people into science snobs, always giving the "it is proven by science". They have to have a logical reason for everything.

i find it highly amusing that you have "your own views" but you have no way to prove your views and no way to really stress what you believe other than appearing to be as ignorant as possible by saying that people are just science snobs who don't think for themselves when the scientific process and what a theory goes through to become accepted are extremely difficult and something scientific doesn't become an accepted viewpoint simply over night.

Calling me ignorant because I don't accept the ideas of a scientific article? I don't give a shit about science. I think sourcing is stupid. It shows that someone has no real personal thoughts, only those derived from sources. I don't expect anyone to believe me. Nor was I pushing my views. I will defend myself without the use of facts and/or sources. If you don't like my posts, feel free to delete them. No hard feelings from me.

no, i'm not calling you ignorant because you don't accept the article, i'm calling you ignorant because you have no base argument other than "i say so" to support your ideas. telling people "i say so and there's no way you can change my mind" just screams ignorance because it shows you have no room to even entertain to a remote possibility how someone else's beliefs may be more valid than your own.

like i stress, you use sources to support your personal thoughts and you form them into a true opinion, or else you have nothing but a vague feeling of "i think this should be right". you may not care and that's fine, but i sure hope you're not going into any sort of university education where being open minded and inquisitive will get you far in your studies.

no one is going to delete your posts just because i disagree with you. your posts are deleted because they break the rules. i'm just sad that you don't seem to understand what a lot of people have been trying to say to you over the span of these threads. and i'll stop trying to convince you otherwise. i'm certainly hoping a dose of how the real world works in the future will change your point of view.

--------------------------------------

back to the real han.

i have a question for those with experience of either being a mainlander, living in china or have knowledge of anything related to china, does the communist government actually stress that "mandarin is the real chinese language" and that the "chinese people are the real han"?

[Sugar&Spice]

About the language part. Yes, I have read in various articles, that they have demed Mandarin as the real chinese language. But that has been debated, because alot of people have traced Cantonese back, and have said that it is in fact the oldest chinese language and was thus spoken by the chinese, before Mandarin was ever formed. But that is no a fact, because Mandarin is just as old as Cantonese. And was probably spoken around the same time. But the Wu dialect comes into play here since it too was dated back into the A.D, times. But no one can really be sure.

Also the way the language was spoken back then, has changed so much since then, that the version spoken now, is by far different. But anyway, people are claiming that Mandarin is the offical chinese language, and that it was spoken by emperors and such. From what I see people have really split their opinion on it, and have not really come to a definate conclusion. But many have adapted it as their offical language.

I also want to add, that I agree with what orangeman said when he spoke of science snobs who just lean on sience and don't have their own thoughts.

I agee. Alot of people look to science as if it is some kind of bible. And they constanly let that be what guides them. While science has taken a few steps up. It has also taken a few steps back in my opinion. And even though it has made so many achievements, it still is very limited.

It has yet to produce a drug without side effects, or find a cure for the common cold.

When it comes to cancer they have radiation. But that still proves t be unhealthy after a while.

Science still has not come up with a cure for alot of the different bacteria, and viruses that plauge people today.

It may seem as if it has progressed. And I don't doubt that it has, I mean it really came a long way from what it was back then. But still too many people rely on it too much, as if it can change just about anything.

And alot of people think that almost everything can be answered by quoting too many resources, and they start to sound like a walking dictionary, rather then a person. And it can get rather annoying, and redundant. Sources can be good, but in moderation. Once you relay a source, then add an opinion, don't just state resource on top of resource, every debate is answered with. Let me go do research, and then come back with an essay. My goodness, that really kills a debate. List one or two points, out of an article and expound on that. But long pages of info, makes no sense, and it dosen't make anyone look smarter. It just seems as if the person dosen't have one thought of hs own in his head.

[happifruit]

I backed out of the thread when it got hot with the opinions and science, but now that it's back to languages I'm going to throw in a few cents.

I think one of the main reasons why Mandarin is the so-called 'real Chinese language' is that it is accepted as the standard. There are countless dialects in a country as vast and diverse as China; the two sides of my family alone speak 3 different dialects and a variation of Cantonese! So I think that because the capital has been centred in Beijing for the last few centuries, the accent around the Beijing area minus the Beijing accent itself has just become the accepted standard.

And it's just that. A standard doesn't become one unless it's generally accepted, and so I guess it's just convenient to say that Mandarin is the official dialect because it's the dialect spoken around the official capital.

[orangeman]

To respond to the rebuttals written by KendoTiger and judes:

I don't like to explain my statements much because I don't want to write out every thought. Long posts bore me to read and write.

I'm a "believe it or not" kind of person. Either take my word, or don't. One example of my way of writing is that science has yet to prove why people stutter. Scientists are still uncertain what actually causes it. I'm waiting for the answer, but not sure if I would want to hear it. Since once a claim/theory is out, people will think they know how stutterers behave and feel, in this case. That is stupid. You can't feel through words until you've actualyl experienced it. I wouldn't support science if all it does is lower the intelligence of people. The scientific community may think they're smart and great, but they're no better than the rest of us. Smart people often lack wisdom. Wisdom is something science can't define or prove.

It's good to use human logic. Personally, human logic makes a post more interesting. I can read scientific articles, but I can't read a human brain. That's why we shouldn't involve science into discussions; it kills opinions. And creates a big argument over who is right.

[KendoTiger]

people are claiming that Mandarin is the offical chinese language, and that it was spoken by emperors and such.

Yeah, that makes sense, as Beijing was the Imperial City (during much of Chinese history). Also with the influence of Manchuria through the Kahns.

It has yet to produce a drug without side effects, or find a cure for the common cold.

The problem with the cold is that it is caused by a virus - which are able to mutate quickly. By the time scientists are able to create a vaccine, the virus has already mutated enough that it is no longer affected. It's kind of like, this murderer running around, but by the time the police have a picture of him, he's already changed his face. Even if science was able to rapidly create a vaccine, the production process is still extremely slow, meaning that it would not be able to be spread to the people.

[Alias]

To be honest, I don't even know what it means to be Han. I just know that I'm Chinese, my dialect is Hokkien, and my language+culture rock. I think the whole Han, non-Han issue is really a non-issue, much like how some Taiwanese people deny that they're ethnically Chinese, which is absolutely ridiculous.
I agree. What I'm going to say next is completely biased, but I'm gonna say it anyway: God do the mainland Chinese people have issues or what?

i agree totally!!! thats the problem with chinese and europeans. There are so much in fighting within the same ethnicitty when compared to others. Look at this issue... why does it really matter? (i mean the issue, not the post). We should just embrace the fact that we all are chinese and maybe then we will learn to move forward together... maybe then chinese can once again be the more advance race.... (as in chinese were the fast to invent papers then explosive... but since then, the europeans since to invent more). Just my opinion.